By Brett Blake As promised, James Bond has returned in his 24th cinematic adventure (or 26th, depending on whether or not you count the two “unofficial” movies), and while it doesn’t reach the heights of its immediate predecessor, SKYFALL, SPECTRE is a grand-scale, classy, splashy work of entertainment that allows Daniel Craig to cut loose a bit and have some fun, even as his Bond finds himself embroiled in an intensely personal mission for the third straight time. After a truly bravura and exhilarating opening sequence set during Mexico City’s Day of the Dead parade (seriously, it’s one of the best pre-title scenes in the entire franchise), the plot finds James Bond (Daniel Craig) independently investigating a mysterious (and seemingly all-powerful) organization called SPECTRE, which is bent on controlling all of the world’s intelligence agencies for its own nefarious ends. While M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Wishaw) fight to keep the 00 Section from being closed down by bureaucratic maneuvers, 007 is cutoff from help as he and Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) seek to track down SPECTRE’s dark leader (Christoph Waltz), a man with some sinister secrets of his own. Though not without flaws (which will be addressed shortly), SPECTRE is nevertheless packed full of great stuff. Its central mystery is engaging and compelling for much of the running time, the editing is crisp and impactful, as well, which aids both in the pacing (in no way does this feel like a two-and-a-half-hour sit) and the staging of the action; while not groundbreaking, the setpieces are highly entertaining and varied, offering everything from car chases to close-quarters fights (a fistfight aboard a train is an especially brutal highlight of the film) to brawls inside - and hanging off the outside - of an out-of-control helicopter. If you go into SPECTRE just looking for exciting action, you will be satisfied. Additionally, all of the technical categories operate at the highest levels, with none higher than the cinematography, which is absolutely beautiful and stylish in its own way, just as the ‘60s entries were. All of the money, so-to-speak, is up on the screen, and that’s as it should be with these movies. The acting is terrific across the board. Craig has never been more at ease or more playful as Bond, and he makes it look completely effortless. He may not have yet fully overtaken Sean Connery as this author’s favorite 007, but he’s now tied him, at the very least. Craig in this outing gets to look like he’s actually having a lot of fun, despite the fact that his mission at hand is so intrinsically tied to his character’s often tragic past; there’s a real panache to his work here, and he embraces moments of levity with relish this time out. Fiennes, Wishaw, and Harris each get moments to shine (far more than their characters have traditionally gotten in the past, and they all play key roles in the movie’s climax), and their interplay creates a neat team atmosphere that feels unique. Léa Seydoux’s character is strangely underwritten a bit on the page (she’s basically along for the ride because… well, because), but she does her damndest to pick up that slack, imbuing her role with flirty charm that masks surprising soulfulness. And finally we have Christoph Waltz as the villain; not much can be said about the character without veering into Spoiler Land, but it can certainly be allowed that Waltz is great. Menacing without chewing scenery, humorous with being campy, he never hits an inauthentic note, and he brings some genuine simmering anger to the proceedings. Some people may have issues with the character as written (and I’m basically one of them; more on that below), but nobody should be able to find fault with the performance. That brings us to the more problematic or controversial areas. In a certain sense, SPECTRE feels like a film caught between two warring impulses on the part of the filmmakers: the desire to have a more traditional Bond adventure and the desire to continue the deconstruction and grounding of the character that has run through all of Craig’s previous entries. It is with SPECTRE that - for the first time in Craig’s run - almost all of the standard 007 elements are in place: the classic gunbarrel is returned to its rightful place at the start of the movie, Bond once again orders his signature drink, he has a briefing in Q’s (Ben Wishaw) workshop that is much more in line with similar scenes from the Bond films of yore, and the level of humor is amped up significantly. Also, the overall vibe of the thing is so charming and almost joyfully entertaining (even at its darkest moments), much more than the highly introspective and moody SKYFALL. All of that is great! And yet… at the same time, the movie seems to actively poke its finger in the eyes of the hardcore James Bond fans with its choices regarding Waltz’s villain, his background and motivation, and the overall placement of the SPECTRE organization within the plot. On their own, these choices are - at best - interesting (and - at worst - preposterous to the point of stupidity, though by no means some kind of “betrayal of the franchise,” as certain critics have petulantly decreed), but longtime Bond fans who have a genuine emotional investment in the franchise might feel like the filmmakers dropped the ball a bit. How these choices will play to the more casual “I really only like the Daniel Craig James Bond movies” sort of fan remains to be seen. That said, this film’s climactic developments could potentially herald some great drama for the next installment. Just based on early critical response, an interesting, polarized dynamic has taken shape. In the U.K., audience and critic reaction has been - at the very least - positive, with some critics being absolutely head-over-heels for the movie. Here in the U.S., the response has been decidedly more negative, with some respected writers throwing out hyperbole to the effect of “SPECTRE ruins Daniel Craig’s tenure as Bond!” or “SPECTRE is the worst James Bond movie in 30 years!” Now, if a person doesn’t like SPECTRE, nobody can tell him or her they’re wrong, but the worst Bond movie in 30 years? Worse than A VIEW TO A KILL or DIE ANOTHER DAY?! SPECTRE may have flaws (and it does; see above), but to be mentioned in the same breath as the the absolute lowest of the low for 007 cinema is patently stupid, to be blunt. It’s fascinating to see the critical pools from either side of the Atlantic have such diametrically opposed reactions, and it remains to be seen if audiences will view SPECTRE from such polar positions. That’s a long-winded way of saying that if you’re on the fence about whether or not to see SPECTRE because of mixed reviews, you owe it to both yourself and the movie to see it and make up your own mind. It’s a lavish and compelling spy adventure, and that’s all it needs to be. Yes, it’s wonderful when the SKYFALLs come around and transcend the franchise to become truly great motion pictures, but those are rare in this series. Indeed, only four or five would be what I’d call legitimately spectacular films divorced from the franchise. SPECTRE is merely a great James Bond film, and while that might disappoint those with too-lofty expectations, it’s more than enough for me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|